The defiant moment may be yet to come. For if California reverses Proposition 8 and relegalizes gay marriage, then Glasspool faces a decision: does she marry Becki Sander, her partner of 22 years, and become a living symbol of a controversial debate? Or does she continue to duck the news glare and remain as she is, contentedly cohabitating? I'd like to think her father, were he alive, would assert the Traditional (capital T, please) importance of marriage—and uncomfortably, but proudly, walk his middle-aged daughter down the aisle.To me, this is a no-brainer, because this is the decision BP and I faced. It in no way slights the years of our relationship and the commitment we felt prior to 2008 to say that we married when it became legal. To me, if marriage is legal, not marrying would be an active choice. To CHOOSE not to be married, knowing what meaning marriage carries, is to CHOOSE a different kind of relationship . I have no problem with people cohabiting, but if you want your relationship to be viewed as a marriage, then you have to marry when it becomes possible: when it becomes a choice.
A friend of a friend was exploring whether or not he had a calling to enter seminary to study for the rabbinate. He was told that he should have married in the California Interregnum. That his partner of many years was (and is) another man made no difference to the seminary: the expectation is that clergy should be married! I don't think TEC would approve of a straight clergy person cohabiting sans marriage.
When Prop8 is repealed (as it will be sooner or later), I would have no problem with the expectation that long term GLBT couples are expected to marry. And as same sex blessings become legal in the Episcopal church, it makes sense to me that there is an expectation that the couple will be civilly "legalized" as soon as that becomes a possibility in their home jurisdiction. If we want true equality, that means equality of responsbilities and expectations as well as benefits.